Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Specsavers Specsavers The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:44): Many of us are familiar with the advertising mantra of optical giant Specsavers accompanying an act of misfortune caused by visual impairment, 'Should have gone to Specsavers.' Constituent Ron Stone, a pensioner aged 72, did just that and now he is blind. His is an appalling story of abject neglect and incompetence by Specsavers, worsened by SA Health's slack record management and its perplexing hospital waiting lists. Here is what happened to Ron, and it should serve as a salutary warning that people should have their eyes checked by competent professionals who are prepared to follow-up on the wellbeing of clients. In June 2017, Mr Stone saw an optometrist known as Tiffany at the Specsavers' Tea Tree Plaza franchise. The optometrist, who apparently is no longer in Australia and no longer works at Specsavers, advised that he had early signs of glaucoma with an eye pressure reading of 27. An experienced optometrist advised me that this should have raised an alarm and that eyedrops, costing only $6, should have been immediately prescribed by Specsavers. If Tiffany was not certified to provide a script, then she should have ensured that someone within the practice did so as a matter of urgency. This did not occur. Instead, Tiffany advised Mr Stone that she would refer him to a specialist ophthalmologist at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and that if he had not heard back in three months to contact her again. She did not tell Mr Stone his deteriorating eyesight was an urgent issue, nor did she suggest a referral to a private specialist. She did not mention that there were significant risks in delaying attention, including permanent eyesight loss. Clinical notes show that Tiffany made a referral to an RAH ophthalmologist for a second opinion. She did not mark it as urgent. Long waiting times at the RAH are well known in the profession. The optometrist I consulted informs me there is a waiting list to get on the waiting list. More bewildering in this digital age, the RAH only accepts referrals by archaic fax machine. After three months, Mr Stone had heard nothing from the RAH. When Mr Stone again returned to Specsavers in December 2017 and Specsavers checked to see what happened to the now dated referral, the RAH advised it never received it. Specsavers had not followed up at any time, nor confirmed whether the RAH had or had not received the referral. Clinical notes from the second consultation revealed his intraocular pressure increased to an alarming level and another referral was resubmitted to the RAH with an urgent time line specified. The RAH responded to this second referral by placing Mr Stone on a non-urgent list. Why? Specsavers failed to follow-up with the RAH that Mr Stone was an urgent case, nor did it investigate or suggest alternatives. Mr Stone eventually saw an RAH eye specialist two months after the second referral—far too late. Specsavers had left Mr Stone languishing with what it knew was a seriously worsening case of glaucoma for five months. Mr Stone needed two operations at the RAH and was told the delays significantly contributed to his loss of sight. He was also told that had he waited another two months, he would have been completely blind. As I have outlined and based on clinical notes I have seen, it is an indisputable fact that Mr Stone's loss of sight is due to the negligence of Specsavers. However, the RAH is also culpable. Sadly, this was entirely preventable. In seeking a remedy, Mr Stone has had no satisfactory response from Specsavers. They fobbed him off with an insulting offer of a $100 discount on three pairs of glasses. He should be compensated for the loss of his eyesight. The Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner has also proven to be a toothless, useless watchdog handling Mr Stone's complaint. He has lost the enjoyment of the years of life he has left. He had to surrender his driver's licence and cannot drive his wife, who has Parkinson's, to medical appointments. He cannot read the paper, the TV is a blur and, sadly, cannot make out faces of people, especially his grandchildren. In its national advertising campaign, Specsavers likes to present itself as a responsible and ethical provider of services, claiming it cares for your sight and hearing. It implores Australians to demand more. Well, Ron Stone is demanding more of Specsavers, and so will I.